WASHINGTON — Throughout American history, numerous presidents have come to the White House vowing to reform the federal government, yet Donald Trump stands out as uniquely committed to an aggressive approach that seems more focused on diminishing the government than reforming it.
In forming his administration, Trump has demonstrated a preference for selecting individuals who are skeptical or show outright disdain for the federal agencies they will lead, potentially setting the stage for a prolonged conflict between his administration and established U.S. institutions. Doug Brinkley, a historian specializing in the presidency, remarked, “We have never seen anything like what Trump aims to do. We are essentially discussing the dismantlement of the federal government.”
This week, Trump’s intentions will become more evident as Kash Patel, his nominee for FBI director, visits Capitol Hill for discussions with senators responsible for his confirmation. A former national security official and self-identified Trump supporter, Patel has suggested radical changes, such as shutting down the bureau’s headquarters and restructuring its responsibilities, while targeting what he views as Trump’s adversaries.
Greg Brower, a former U.S. attorney and FBI official, indicated that Trump’s goal seems to involve transforming the nation’s law enforcement agencies into extensions of his political agenda emanating from the White House. However, he expressed concern that many senators may not support this major shift in how these institutions function.
Some Republican senators are already deliberating over the nomination of Pete Hegseth for Secretary of Defense, despite allegations of misconduct, excessive drinking, and financial issues. An Army veteran and former Fox News commentator, Hegseth has criticized what he perceives as a “woke” ideology in the military and has advocated for eliminating female participation in combat roles.
Karoline Leavitt, a spokesperson for Trump’s transition team and incoming White House press secretary, stated that the new administration is determined to “smash the Deep State,” a term used to describe established civil servants who have been obstacles to Trump and his supporters. “President Trump was given a resounding mandate to alter the status quo in Washington,” she added, emphasizing that he has chosen highly regarded outsiders for his administration, pledging to stand by them against detractors of the MAGA agenda.
Margaret Spelling, who previously served as the U.S. Secretary of Education under President George W. Bush, cautioned that antagonizing government employees is not a wise management strategy. “To effectuate change, you need cooperation from those already in place,” she noted, highlighting the importance of working with existing staff.
Trump’s agenda could lead to significant changes in the Department of Education, particularly with his selection of Linda McMahon as education secretary. McMahon lacks experience in this field, having had only a year of service on Connecticut’s Board of Education and a role as a trustee at a private university. Previously, she headed the Small Business Administration during Trump’s first term and is known for her leadership role at World Wrestling Entertainment, a company centered around scripted professional wrestling.
Trump’s vision for the federal government aligns with a conservative ideology that critiques Washington’s extensive influence in citizens’ lives, combining this with personal grievances. After facing investigations and opposition from career officials during his first term, he is unlikely to tolerate a similar experience upon his return, favoring his own judgment over traditional insider perspectives.
While some of his nominations raise concerns among political adversaries, they might resonate with voters disillusioned by a government they perceive as ineffective; currently, only about 20% of Americans express confidence that the government usually makes the right choices. This marks a steep decline from the nearly 40% who trusted the federal government in 2000, prior to significant socio-economic upheavals.
Kay Schlozman, a political science professor at Boston College, noted that Trump’s nominees reflect a challenge to established norms and the elite structure traditionally controlling governance.
Lapses in expertise are particularly pronounced in public health. For instance, Trump appointed Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to head the Department of Health and Human Services, despite his status as a prominent proponent of discredited vaccine-related theories. Additionally, Trump has nominated Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, known for opposing public health measures implemented during the pandemic, to direct the National Institutes of Health.
In other government appointments, loyalty has often been more valuable than experience. Lee Zeldin, a former congressman who had no prior involvement with environmental issues during his tenure, is slated to oversee the Environmental Protection Agency.
Brinkley observed that presidential attempts to reshape Washington are not novel; however, he emphasized that the animosity evident in Trump’s approach is distinctive, suggesting that his team competes in zealotry against perceived adversaries. “It feels gladiatorial,” he described, noting their willingness to gain public favor by targeting the so-called deep state, legacy media, or Democratic Party.
Trump is also addressing government dynamics by establishing an independent advisory body called the Department of Government Efficiency, led by figures such as Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy. This team plans to propose radical measures for decreasing federal spending and downsizing the government workforce, suggesting that Trump could circumvent congressional approval, potentially leading to significant constitutional challenges.
Theda Skocpol, a Harvard professor of government and sociology, echoed the sentiment that Americans often question Washington’s efficiency. “But that doesn’t imply that it will be simple to eliminate entire agencies or operations,” she acknowledged. “People have a vested interest in these entities.”
Nonetheless, Skocpol noted that creating disorder may be an intended strategy. “Segments of American conservatism have sought to create a dysfunctional government when they gain control, using that as a case for reducing government,” she explained.